Wound Allocation Question

[Valerian]

Completely silly argument in my opinion. A models wargear and profile do not change from what they are at the start of the game. A model with a combiflamer has a combi flamer, whether it is fired or not, a model with a demo charge, is the demo charge model, whether it has been used or not, profiles are based on what you have when you make the list, and do not change during play.

 

I wholeheartedly concur and agree with this. To treat them any differently is to do something that you may feel is right, but isn't specified or directed by the game rules. A Combi-melta is a Combi-melta, regardless of whether its single special weapon shot has been used, or not. Likewise, a model carrying the Wolf Standard still has that piece of wargear, regardless of whether its special function has been activated or not.

 

V

I disagree with this interpretation for a very basic reason:

 

If we roll all those with combi-flamers together, then are the dead ones used or unused?

 

As usual, the owning player pulls whichever model(s) he wishes from a group. Let's use this example: a batch of 5 models have Combi-meltas and 3 have shot the Melta weapon, while 2 have not. The squad is shot with 3 wounding hits, and the group fails two saves, so the owning player removes two of the models that already spent their Melta shot.

 

To do otherwise is to try to follow intent, and not RAW. I'm fine with that, for the most part, in actual game play (I'd just expect an opponent to explain what he was doing and check if I was okay with it), but this is the Official Rules forum, in which we typically base arguments of of what the rules say, and not what we think they should say.

 

Best,

 

V

[Grey Mage]

Completely silly argument in my opinion. A models wargear and profile do not change from what they are at the start of the game. A model with a combiflamer has a combi flamer, whether it is fired or not, a model with a demo charge, is the demo charge model, whether it has been used or not, profiles are based on what you have when you make the list, and do not change during play.

 

I wholeheartedly concur and agree with this. To treat them any differently is to do something that you may feel is right, but isn't specified or directed by the game rules. A Combi-melta is a Combi-melta, regardless of whether its single special weapon shot has been used, or not. Likewise, a model carrying the Wolf Standard still has that piece of wargear, regardless of whether its special function has been activated or not.

 

V

I disagree with this interpretation for a very basic reason:

 

If we roll all those with combi-flamers together, then are the dead ones used or unused?

 

As usual, the owning player pulls whichever model(s) he wishes from a group. Let's use this example: a batch of 5 models have Combi-meltas and 3 have shot the Melta weapon, while 2 have not. The squad is shot with 3 wounding hits, and the group fails two saves, so the owning player removes two of the models that already spent their Melta shot.

 

To do otherwise is to try to follow intent, and not RAW. I'm fine with that, for the most part, in actual game play (I'd just expect an opponent to explain what he was doing and check if I was okay with it), but this is the Official Rules forum, in which we typically base arguments of of what the rules say, and not what we think they should say.

 

Best,

 

V

Im sorry, I cannot agree that a combiweapon, and a used combiweapon, are the same weapons. They do not have identical capabilities.

 

In point of fact a Combi-weapon is referred to as having a 'boltgun and a secondary weapon'. The secondary weapon can only be fired once per game- like an HK missile. If you dont have to destroy a spent one shot weapon before going to immobilized, Id argue that the secondary weapon likewise no longer exists for the purposes of the game once its been fired.

[Legatus]

I do think that would be the most reasonable interpretation for a lot of game situations. Otherwise equal Models, weapons and wargear that have their states somehow altered should no longer be considered identical to unaltered versions. In particular, items or weapons that can be "expent" should then be considered nonexistent.

 

Examples:

 

A Librarian and a Librarian whose Leadership Value has been reduced by "Purgatus" should not be considered identical.

 

A "One Use Only" weapon that has not yet been used and one that has been should not be considered identical. There are rules for these weapons only being allowed a limited use, so we can make a viable distinction based on their use.

What weapon will you chose, the AK47 with the half empty clip, or the AK47 with a full clip? They are both AK47, so it doesn't make a difference?

 

An Item that cannot be used is indistinguishable to a nonexistent item to the rules. A Guardsman that has used his demolition charge has exactly the same capabilities and properties of a Guardsman that did not have a demolition charge in the first place. In fluff or on the figure the weapon might still be "there", but in the game it practically isn't. The capabilities such a weapon would grant the model are no longer there.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

I can't believe you people are still arguing this!!!

 

Is a Zebra a white animal with black stripes or a black animal with white stripes?.......Who cares!!!

 

If this ever happened in a tournament the guy who threw the first hissy fit gets to have it his way...then gets ZERO for sportsmanship.

 

And if you pulled this garbage amongst friends you shortly wouldn't have many friends.

 

It's like I said.....pg 2 ... top of page....BOLD PRINT and its own caption box!!!

[BlackSpike]

If this ever happened in a tournament the guy who threw the first hissy fit gets to have it his way...then gets ZERO for sportsmanship.

 

And if you pulled this garbage amongst friends you shortly wouldn't have many friends.

 

If this happens in a Tournament, the T.O. decides. FINAL WORD.

There is a difference between "querying a rules interpretation" and "throwing a hissy fit".

 

No-one is trying to "pull garbage".

We're trying to figure out how this is supposed to work between games, so that no-one can pull a swerve-ball half-way through a game, causing arguments and bad feeling. We may well walk away with differing opinions, but we'll have seen some other sides to the arguments.

If it were half-way through the shooting phase, I'd probably say "yeah, whatever" and move on. But I don't have another game scheduled for over a month!

 

I don't want to roll 4+ every game, and I don't want to play "your way" every game, just because you challenged my interpretation.

If, after looking at the issues, reading the rules again, comparing with other rules and seeing what other people have to say, I am convinced that "your way" is correct (or at least correct enough not to argue any more) then fine, we'll use that ruling. Maybe I'll be able to convince you that "my way" is the correct interpretation, and we'll use that.

I don't see the harm in thrashing it out over the course of several evenings when I have little else to do!

 

This is the Rules Forum, for discussing Rules.

[Grey Mage]

Exactly- if you cant find a straightforward rules quote, the best thing is to discuss things between games, such as we are currently doing. This helps things stay less emotional then they would be in game, and is more likely to give you an impartial and correct answer since we have the time to look up all the resources and think of all the instances.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

If this ever happened in a tournament the guy who threw the first hissy fit gets to have it his way...then gets ZERO for sportsmanship.

 

And if you pulled this garbage amongst friends you shortly wouldn't have many friends.

 

If this happens in a Tournament, the T.O. decides. FINAL WORD.

There is a difference between "querying a rules interpretation" and "throwing a hissy fit".

 

No-one is trying to "pull garbage".

We're trying to figure out how this is supposed to work between games, so that no-one can pull a swerve-ball half-way through a game, causing arguments and bad feeling. We may well walk away with differing opinions, but we'll have seen some other sides to the arguments.

If it were half-way through the shooting phase, I'd probably say "yeah, whatever" and move on. But I don't have another game scheduled for over a month!

 

I don't want to roll 4+ every game, and I don't want to play "your way" every game, just because you challenged my interpretation.

If, after looking at the issues, reading the rules again, comparing with other rules and seeing what other people have to say, I am convinced that "your way" is correct (or at least correct enough not to argue any more) then fine, we'll use that ruling. Maybe I'll be able to convince you that "my way" is the correct interpretation, and we'll use that.

I don't see the harm in thrashing it out over the course of several evenings when I have little else to do!

 

This is the Rules Forum, for discussing Rules.

 

My apologies. I'm just a little frustrated because usually these kinds of things come up at a tournament and the ensuing arguement (before the TO gets there) manages to wreck the atmosphere for everyone. I understand that as the rules forum we are to be discussing the rules. And yes the TO has final word. The problem is that many of the people in this discussion will never actually play each other. Which means that even if by some miracle a general concensus is reached, we would still have to go through this same arguement later, and it's convoluted enough when it's right here on the screen rather than just verbal. If anything people are just going to go away more locked into their own opinion.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

A Librarian and a Librarian whose Leadership Value has been reduced by "Purgatus" should not be considered identical.

 

Of course not, but they are also two different units aren't they?

[BlackSpike]

Yeah, i see your point, Hiro-P.

Last thing I want to hear at a tournament is "Well, they said on B&C ... !" :wub:

 

Personally, I don't play Tournaments, and if I did, I'd be the 1st to call the TO over disputes, preferably before getting bogged down into an argument.

Hopefully, the TO will have read some of this stuff, and so be prepared for what to expect. Also, they'd hopefully be strong enough to say "Here is my ruling. Play ball."

 

In our local group, we have some people who are more than happy to argue about such things, often swapping sides halfway through, to find a "proper" ruling. others say "Yeah, whatever." and play on.

We usually clarify before a game; "What did we decide about combi-weapons? And I'm bringing a Deff-Rolla wagon - I can hit Vehicles, yes?", usually as part of the main set-up (What style of play (PS, CoD), terrain (how much, what counts as diff/dang/imp etc), ).

 

I suppose I'm lucky in the sense that our group is small and tight-knit. No random strangers/occasional players who haven't been in in our discussions.

[Legatus]

I like a friendly atmosphere during games. That's why I usually play with friends. It's also why when I do play against someone I don't know at the GW store I do not insist to wait for a store employee or to check the sources and will often just give in and play as my opponent is certain the rule works. Not in every instance, perhaps, depending on it's impact, but for minor things, no issue.

On a message board, I will take a more firm stance on such issues. We all have time to discuss it here, and someone might have an arguments that convinces the other.

 

Edit: Even among friends we sometimes encounter issues where neitehr of us is sure how they work, or cannot figure out where in the rulebook it is described. I such situations we usually quickly agree how to handle it for that game and check back on it later. That has led to the one or other "Hah, told you. I could have won if we had played it correctly." later, which is allways good fun.

 

 

A Librarian and a Librarian whose Leadership Value has been reduced by "Purgatus" should not be considered identical.

Of course not, but they are also two different units aren't they?

They could both be joining the same unit, or even form a unit of ICs among themselves, so they still work as an example, as in that case you would somehow have to distribute wounds from ranged attacks among them.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

Well I must say that I am relieved. Legatus, BlackSpike, you have restored my faith in gamers being reasonable! In the spirit of this discussion then I will throw in with the spent Combis are different than unspent Combis. My argument for this will be....that a squad of Burna boys, who are all armed the same and have identical profiles, must roll to hit and wound separately in close combat depending on who fired their burnas that turn. Or can I just roll to hit and then say that the ones that hit were the power weapon attacks?

[BlackSpike]

With your example of Burna Boys, I would ask you to roll the Power Weapon attacks separately from the non-PW attacks, just as you roll a PW-Sarge separately from the marines in his squad.

I would also consider having two Wound Allocation Groups (PW, non-PW), as during this assault phase, they are NOT 'identical in game terms'. (Quite important with Orks low I, they are probably taking some wounds before they attack!).

 

I have just been chatting with a friend who considers a Squad with Bolter Marines, a Combi-Melta (Full) and a Combi-Melta (Empty) to be 3 Wound Allocation Groups. "A Combi-Melta is NOT a bolter, even if it has been fired. Similarly, a full Combi is diff. to a empty Combi. 3 groups."

[Hiro_Protagonist]

With your example of Burna Boys, I would ask you to roll the Power Weapon attacks separately from the non-PW attacks, just as you roll a PW-Sarge separately from the marines in his squad.

I would also consider having two Wound Allocation Groups (PW, non-PW), as during this assault phase, they are NOT 'identical in game terms'. (Quite important with Orks low I, they are probably taking some wounds before they attack!).

 

I have just been chatting with a friend who considers a Squad with Bolter Marines, a Combi-Melta (Full) and a Combi-Melta (Empty) to be 3 Wound Allocation Groups. "A Combi-Melta is NOT a bolter, even if it has been fired. Similarly, a full Combi is diff. to a empty Combi. 3 groups."

 

I agree with you about the orks (both points) that's how I run it too.

 

I don't agree with the 3 wound groups. Mostly because the empty Combi-Melta will never return to "full" status. As a spent Combi melta fires just like a bolter it would just complicate things. Unless you're trying to stack up unsavable wounds onto that 3rd wound group...

[Legatus]

I would compare the burna situation more to a number of models that have two different close combat weapons. Say for example they have power weapons and power fists. A number of models decides to fight with power weapons in one combat phase, while the rest decides to fight with power fists. They are not armed differently, even though in that combat there is a difference between their attacks. But that is due to teh choice of the owning player. Similar to how of two models with a plasmagun, one might decide to fire his bolt pistol instead, or how models with multiple special close combat weapons can chose which one to use. The difference is that with burnas the player does not decide that at the beginning of the close combat phase, but during the previous shooting phase.

 

There may be other instances where a model's stats are changed only briefly due to some effect, like Furious Charge or Tyranid Lash Whips. In such cases I would not neccessarily count those models as being different to those unaffected. That is why I have often refered to characteristics being changed "for the rest of the game", such as with "Purgatus" or with "One Shot Only" weapons. These are not due to some temporary negative effect, they are permanent alterations.

[Arikel]

The best reason to go with the list as it was at the begining of the game is that it follows the KISS principle. There is no need to needlessly bog down the game by having models change profiles and equipment loadouts midway through and have to work out new wound allocation groups.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

The best reason to go with the list as it was at the begining of the game is that it follows the KISS principle. There is no need to needlessly bog down the game by having models change profiles and equipment loadouts midway through and have to work out new wound allocation groups.

 

KISS is all well and good, but most of the time people want it complex, at least for wound allocation. That's why we've seen the sudden upswing of Nob Bikers and Thunderwolf Cavalry hitting the table. Multi-wound models with everyone as a separate wound group...I don't like it either, but that's what people are going for. Single wound models are just trying to get in on them game in some way.

[Arikel]

The best reason to go with the list as it was at the begining of the game is that it follows the KISS principle. There is no need to needlessly bog down the game by having models change profiles and equipment loadouts midway through and have to work out new wound allocation groups.

 

KISS is all well and good, but most of the time people want it complex, at least for wound allocation. That's why we've seen the sudden upswing of Nob Bikers and Thunderwolf Cavalry hitting the table. Multi-wound models with everyone as a separate wound group...I don't like it either, but that's what people are going for. Single wound models are just trying to get in on them game in some way.

 

True but the thing is that the nob with the kombi skorcha is always the nob with the kombi skorcha, whether it's been fired or not. Some people are trying to differentiate between the item being a loaded kombi skorcha or and unloaded one and then rearranging wound allocation groups mid game to gain some advantage. This is 1) Not clearly supported(yet unfortunately, not specifically negated) by the rules, 2) unsportsmanlike, and 3)adding unnecessary complexity to an already complex system.

[Legatus]

Some people are trying to differentiate between the item being a loaded kombi skorcha or and unloaded one and then rearranging wound allocation groups mid game to gain some advantage. This is (...) 2) unsportsmanlike

As opposed to allocating wounds to your "combi-meltas", then removing those that have allready been fired for the failed saves, and thus not really losing any melta shots? That's totally what the rules for "complex units" were intended for... :P

[Hiro_Protagonist]

In a way the rules for complex units becomes a double edged sword. Yes, you can "hide" insta-kill shots within one wound group but it also puts each wound grouping at risk in its own way. Just look at the example in the book. Everybody is put at risk, but the owning player decides how much.

[Arikel]

As opposed to allocating wounds to your "combi-meltas", then removing those that have allready been fired for the failed saves, and thus not really losing any melta shots? That's totally what the rules for "complex units" were intended for... :)

 

No system can be perfect. However, the simplest solution is almost always the best one. In this case wound allocation groups being determined at the start of the game by a model's equipment and then being fixed for the duration of the game is the simplest way to go about doing things. In the example given what if 10 wounds were rolled, but 5 were ap2 attacks. In that case the ap2 attacks could all be placed on the group of 3 with the spent combi meltas, giving a chance for the unused meltas to survive. If instead all were in one group then all 5 of the marines would be dead without even having to roll. It cuts both ways, but the go by the list way is the simplest and least time consuming, and therefore "best" solution, if you want to play a quick and easy game with a friend or a stranger.

[Legatus]

Putting aside the combi.meltas for a moment, there are other instances where a model's characteristics will be permanently altered or where a piece of equipment will indeed be destroyed. So even if one was to interprete empty combi-meltas to be considered identical to full ones, going with the model stats and equipment "as bought" woukd still not be the correct interpretation.

[Grey Mage]

Exactly- if some members of a unit have had their attacks lowered by a btb contact special rule- wich are fairly common- youd roll for them seperately from the ones who were not affected by the rule, as that would impact the game.

 

There is nothing in those rules that says its 'profiles, weapons, and wargear as purchased'. Nothing in the rules implies you dont update it as things go on. If they are different in a way that could impact the game- ie their weapons, wargear or profile is different- you roll for them seperately.

 

I can understand, to an extent, the thought that a shot combi-weapon isnt the same as a bolter, except that it is exactly the same. The weapon tha remains is still a bolt gun, has the same profile, the same everything- they are identical by gaming terms. Just like a rhino with a shot HK missile is the same as one that never bought the missile.

 

What I certainly cannot understand is the idea that a spent combi-weapon is the same as an unspent combiweapon- those unshot weapons can have a very different impact on the game than the shot ones, they are not identical in their capabilities or profile. They should not be rolled together.

 

IMO it is in the spirit, letter, and KISS of the rules to not keep changed profiles with their previous groups, and to update the wound allocation groups as needed throughout the game. We have to do this anyways as casualties are taken- remember death is just your profile putting wounds at 0- so why not with weapons and wargear?

[DuncanSpence]

This phrase of 'identical in gaming terms' worries me, particularly when employed on a moment by moment basis.

 

That means that my unadorned Sternguard Sergeant is identical to a standard Sternguard Veteran - in gaming terms, same stats, same wargear. Adding a combi flamer puts him in the same group as the standard veterans with combi flamers, so I should roll him in the same wound group?

 

My troops that are outside 2" of a btb model in combat are not identical in gaming terms to those that are (temporarily they may make no attacks), so can I claim them to be a different group and maybe lose my instakills on them?

 

My troops out of line of sight of a unit shooting at them are different in gaming terms from those in sight (at that point they cannot return fire).

 

How far do you want to take it?

 

As for people wanting it complex, 40K is supposed to be a simple, fast paced game, other gaming systems are available if you want complex.

[Legatus]

That means that my unadorned Sternguard Sergeant is identical to a standard Sternguard Veteran - in gaming terms, same stats, same wargear. Adding a combi flamer puts him in the same group as the standard veterans with combi flamers, so I should roll him in the same wound group?

Of course. Since a Sternguard Sergeant is in no way different from a regular Sternguar Veteran, why should he be rolled for separately? That he has a different title is purely fluff at that moment. Only when you equip him with a power weapon or another exclusive weapon will he become a different model.

 

A model's position, or the choice of which of his weapons a model choses to attack, does not make it a different model. Removing a Marine with boltgun standing 5" away from the enemy unit would have a different impact than removing a Marine with boltgun standing 7" away from th eenemy unit. But how to place his models is based on player decision, not on model properties, and how to remove them is purely the player's decision as well. The rules specify that once saves are taken, the casualties can be removed from anywhere within the unit (fro the model group that was just rolled for, of course).

[Grimtooth]

Legatus, answer this question.

 

At the end of the game if you are determining victory points, would you tally up the points for the Space Marine with the spent combi-melta as just an normal Space Marine with a bolter, or would you tally up the points for a Space Marine with a combi-melta?

 

You would have to tally up the points cost as a combi-melta, which shows that even after fired, it is still treated as a combi-melta after it is used. That is does not change to a bolter status. As was mentioned, the capability may have changed, but the neither the name, points cost, or even WYSIWYG status has changed.